Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

EVENTS

Newcombe’s Ignorant Blather About Evolution

Jerry Newcombe, spokesman for Truth in Action Ministries (formerly Coral Ridge Ministries, led by the late D. James Kennedy), has a column in the Worldnutdaily defending the idea that there was a literal Adam and Eve like the Bible says. He presents no evidence for this, of course, merely saying that he believes that because he believes in Jesus and Jesus quoted Genesis. Wow, what a compelling argument. But then he tries to argue against evolution and falls flat on his face.

How are we to understand claims of overwhelming “scientific facts” backing up the theory of evolution? Well, there are minor biological changes in nature. Some people call this “micro-evolution” (if you will), which simply refers to a limited range variation within a species or kind. In Genesis, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.” That’s why some dogs are poodles and some dogs are great Danes, while both still remain dogs.

Critics note that Darwinists have tried to make a word game by using undisputed microevolution (if you want to call it that), which can be observed everywhere, and claim it as proof of macroevolution – the theory that one species can change into another and that all life evolved ultimately from a common ancestor.

Those critics are abysmally ignorant. There is no distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” Just like one can measure time in seconds (micro) or centuries (macro), the latter is merely the accumulation of the former. And then he tries a quote mine:

The late Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum, wrote a letter in 1979 saying in effect there are no definitive transitional forms in the fossil record chronicling evolution (“gradualism”) in progress: “So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defense of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job.”

Patterson, author of the textbook, “Evolution,” also said in that letter: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.” (This letter was written to the late Luther Sutherland, who reproduced it in his book, “Darwin’s Enigma.”)

In 1912, scientists discovered in England a human skull with a jaw like an ape. They named him Piltdown Man. This was, they said, evidence of true evolution in progress – a real ape man. He was in the textbooks, encyclopedias, museums and even the dictionaries. Finally, the missing link was no longer missing.

But, of course, Piltdown Man turned out to be a deliberate hoax. That aspect was discovered in 1953, after four decades of providing alleged evidence for human evolution during a critical time for the theory to gain wider acceptance.

Seriously, they’re still using this one? For crying out loud, Piltdown Man was not “the missing link,” it was just one in a whole series of hominid fossils and it never fit the pattern at all. That’s why scientists kept questioning it and eventually proved that it was a hoax, because it simply did not fit all of the other evidence of human evolution. That’s how science works. The fact that they have to go back a full century to find this “proof” of the falsehood of evolution shows two things: how ignorant they are and how desperate they are.

There is no distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” Just like one can measure time in seconds (micro) or centuries (macro), the latter is merely the accumulation of the former.

We see this failure with the second most idiotic ignorant set of climate change denialists*. That being the subset who accept the fact the temperature has risen since the start of the Industrial age but ignorantly argue that change is trivial based on their own personal incredulity; while fiercely avoiding or denying what climate scientist have found.

Re denialists use of long-falsified argument as noted above by Ed:
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of observing and participating in debates is the rarity of two opponents using structurally sound arguments. This is a lose/lose proposition for humanity.

One side depends on false premises and logical fallacies which allows them to build a political consensus amongst their in-group, leading to really bad consequences as we see today in a wide array of policy debates. However, even if the opponents of these ignorant idiotic liars do not rely on crappy arguments, they’re still not going to be optimal because there’s a lack of competition to better hone their arguments.

Science and academia can operate somewhat independently of defective arguments. But imagine how much better our knowledge base would be if experts were constantly challenged with valid rebuttals rather than arguments like those we see from creationists, AGW denialists, conservatives, tribalistic liberals, and powerful libertarians.

*Of course the most idiotic set of AGW denialists are those that argue the earth’s energy budget has not increased and/or that an increase of CO2 will benefit the environment and humanity, where they ignorantly look to their “kind’s” interpretation of one set of data that’s misconstrued or not representative of what is actually occurring.

I think the micro macro distinction can have its uses as a practical matter. To use an analogy distance measured in inches is not a different thing to distance measured in miles but you wouldn’t give the distance from Paris to Berlin in inches. In the same way macroevolution can mean evolution on a scale that we study in certain ways (fossil evidence, genetic comparisons between species) as opposed to the inches of microevolution where you might look at the precise gene involved in one adaptation.

The Archimedean property of real numbers has several highly technical formulations, but a simple one that is pertinent in this case is “It doesn’t matter how small it is, if you can have all you want.” In other words, you can be a billionaire if you can have all the pennies you want. (Or trillionaire, for that matter.) If you can have all the microevolutionary steps you want, you can get as much macroevolution as you want. Creationists either don’t get that or are just in denial.

Critics note that Darwinists have tried to make a word game by using undisputed microevolution (if you want to call it that), which can be observed everywhere, and claim it as proof of macroevolution – the theory that one species can change into another and that all life evolved ultimately from a common ancestor.

Two words: Ring Species.

A good example is the salamander Ensatina escholtzii, with subspecies whose range historically spread southward from Northern California on the two sides of the San Joaquin Valley, which can interbreed with each other until they get to Southern California, where, although their ranges do overlap, the subspecies differ too much to interbreed. There are other examples, like the Larus gulls and other birds with ranges around the northern polar region. Since the ancestral populations still exist, genetic comparisons make it clear that these cases, as Richard Dawkins put it in The Ancestor’s Tale “are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension.”

Well, there has to be an actual Adam and Eve or there can’t be an eviction from Eden for sinning (yes, I know it was actually to prevent the eating of the tree of life, but play along) by eating from the tree of knowledge. Without that sin, there could be no need for Jesus to provide redemption. No Jesus, no Christianity. So, for internal consistency, there needs to be an actual Adam and Eve.

It’s kind of a matter of scale, as obnoxious as that is. When your actual “proof” is the ramblings of a backwoods tribal power-seeker from over two thousand years ago, going back a century to quote-mine from an obviously more reliable source is really not a stretch. And by “obviously more reliable” I mean exactly that and to both parties. They aren’t mining for quotes where some science proves another science wrong, they’re mining for quotes where some science “proves” creationism. It’s so bad of an idea it must pander to it’s acknowledged antithesis for any scrap of reasonable legitimacy.

This is why arguing with creationists becomes pointless after a while. You can show all the direct evidence that debunks their claims you can find. They won’t care. They’ll simple ignore it and continue on making the same claims as if you had never shown them the evidence. Most of them probably know that they’re misrepresenting the facts and just don’t care. To them, the great “truth” is more important that any facts.

Fundamentalist Christians are only looking for a “quick fix” of pseudo-science to quell the cognitive dissonance, between prayer meetings. So if it’s a long disproved trope, no matter. They aren’t going to investigate the claim any further as rational inquiry is not there intent, so it will do just fine.

If it is pointed out to them that this alleged “proof” was incorrect or even fraudulent, no matter. Their beliefs are not contingent upon scientific evidence and they will fall back on revelation, waiting confidently for the eventual scientific evidence that will corroborate what they already “know” to be true…

This is why arguing with creationists becomes pointless after a while. You can show all the direct evidence that debunks their claims you can find. They won’t care. They’ll simple ignore it and continue on making the same claims as if you had never shown them the evidence. Most of them probably know that they’re misrepresenting the facts and just don’t care. To them, the great “truth” is more important that any facts.

This is true of all denialists, not just creationists, but AGW denialists, those who deny basic economic principles and look back to the now falsified work of von Mises and Hayek like a creationist looks to Ussher, religious fundamentalists, and those who are Christian Nation revisionists.

Chris Mooney’s last book, Republican Brain provides an overview of the scientific research that explains why American conservatives, and conservative-libertarians, deny reality and push for policies experts are confident are harmful to humanity (some research was also conducted on Canadian conservatives as well).

Denialism is a psychological affliction, more developed than inherited. And you’re right, the more evidence which piles up, research finds the more committed most denialists become to their lie, which I find to be a horrid attribute but one readily observable even in this venue. This last attribute is also true of zealous political ideologues in general, which we also observe occurring here.

Robert Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians provides a pioneer’s insight both into this mentality along with identifying the people who control denialists/authoritarians and play them. Ironically, some authoritarians claim to be the opposite while projecting that attribute onto undeserving others. Altemeyer’s book is free on the Internet and a great insightful read, though I didn’t find it altogether convincing. I think he lacked the funds to setup sufficiently robust samples. The convincing findings which largely validates and goes beyond Altemeyer’s earlier work can be found in Mooney’s more recent publication where those researchers did have sufficient resources.

That’s why scientists kept questioning it and eventually proved that it was a hoax, because it simply did not fit all of the other evidence of human evolution. That’s how science works.

Of course. But Newcomb wasn’t writing to the educated, he was writing to the drooling masses, to those willing to believe without checking facts or knowing how. That’s how propaganda works.

How difficult is it to fact check? He mentions dogs as “proof” of no evolution, so I did a search on two words :[ dogs evolution ] and came up with a plethora of articles on artificial selection and the domesticated dog, including stuff on DNA proving it. It’s not hard to do.

Of course, it also resulted in a few links to stupidity (AIG), which, no doubt , would be the only ones that the ignorant would read. The ones who will read and believe people like Newcombe are the ignorant who are proud of it an want to remain ignorant.

As an example of a form of pseudoscience with a substantial community devoted to sustaining and propagating it, global warming denialism is a natural thing with which to compare creationism. – mithrandir

It’s also by far the most dangerous form of denialism. Creationism, anti-vaxism, HIV-AIDS denialism – none of them even run it close.

Is it possible for you to make a single scientific argument that doesn’t digress into a screed against AGW “deniers”?”

Apparently the answer is…

no.

Whoosh. I am almost always interested in the root causes of defects, not mere symptoms. My response to Ed’s blog posts on symptomatic expressions is frequently to point out the root cause of such defects as experts in the relevant field understand it.

lancifer writes:

And you point to Chris Mooney as the last word on the subject, any subject?

Seriously? This is lame even for you.

Another whoosh; Chris Mooney is a mere journalist who covers topics where science and politics merge. I’m not pointing to him as the, “last word on the subject”. I’m pointing to a book of his that reviews the scientific research that identifies and explains the type of defective thinking you and other denialists demonstrate; and to a smaller degree, the type of defective thinking we also encounter from zealous tribalistic liberals. The latter is sometimes on display in this forum as well. I care, always, about what science has to say, not necessarily its messengers.

If my points were lame, than you’d be able to refute them, something I’ve yet to observe you do. Instead we see whooshes, denial, ignorance – often fiercely determined ignorance, avoidance, and the most remedial of logical fallacies employed.

[AGW denialism is] also by far the most dangerous form of denialism. Creationism, anti-vaxism, HIV-AIDS denialism – none of them even run it close.

That is another motivation of mine to bring up AGW when other forms of denialism are reported. The threat of AGW as its confidently and near-monolithically expressed by climate scientists massively overwhelms the threat politically influential denialism creates on other topics. However, cultural acceptance of creationism and authoritarianism, even unconscious authoritarianism as its so often practiced obliviously by its sufferers, provides room for AGW denialism to flourish.

Obviously we’d have far less AGW denialism if conservative Christians weren’t creationists, it’s their devotion to creationism which enables social dominators in the political and now religious realms to convince them to deny climate change. There’s no religious motivation to deny climate change like there is creationism, only political reasons. If conservative Christians accepted the fact of AGW, its current costs, and its future threats; that would leave only secular conservatives blindly devout to certain plutocratic social dominators; along with conservative-libertarians wedded to their ideology, reality-challenged talking points, and blind often unconscious devotion to the same aforementioned social dominators. That’s hardly enough to continue successfully obstructing Congress as we’ve encountered since President Bush flip-flopped on climate change prescriptions very soon after his first presidential inauguration.

Also, it certainly seems that creationists, AGW denialists, and members of various conspiracies have a large overlap – the same condition (being a RWA) leads to more than one symptom. These are not really independent ideas, surprising as it seems. Oh, and you’ll also see very similar ways of argumentation for all of these.

It’s a bit like people with one allergy or auto-immune disorder often have a number of others – the problem in that case being an overactive immune system.

. . . it certainly seems that creationists, AGW denialists, and members of various conspiracies have a large overlap – the same condition (being a RWA) leads to more than one symptom. These are not really independent ideas, surprising as it seems. Oh, and yu’ll also see very similar ways of argumentation for all of these.
[emphasis Heath’s]

It’s true authoritarians use equivalent defective arguments from a structural perspective across certain topics; but we also encounter these very same incoherent fallacious arguments from some zealous liberals acting like tribalists as well.

From my reading, this phenomena appears to be caused not by authoritarian tendencies alone, where these bad actors on the left are not, but instead by which part of the brain they’re using when it comes to arguing certain topics. And that’s the part which is not controlled by reason but instead by hate and fear, which results in their also not being capable of accepting certain facts. So this an attribute these particular leftists share with authoritarians.

Science and academia can operate somewhat independently of defective arguments. But imagine how much better our knowledge base would be if experts were constantly challenged with valid rebuttals rather than arguments like those we see from creationists, AGW denialists, conservatives, tribalistic liberals, and powerful libertarians.

this great sentiment is ignorant though, of the reality. In fact, working scientists MAKE A LIVING challenging previously published hypotheses. It’s a CONSTANT series of valid rebuttals and counter rebuttals, endlessly tested and retested, with the consensus arising from hypotheses that after endless attacks, have managed to still remain unrejected.

What is tragic is the public misconception of how science in academia actually works.

I care, always, about what science has to say, not necessarily its messengers.

lancifer writes:

Yeah, so long as the conclusions match you preconceived ideas.

Wow. Ideas are a type of conclusion, they’re built on premises. The quality of the idea is a causal result of the quality and sufficiency of the premises used to support the idea.

It’s bassackwards to claim my ideas come prior to the premises used to create the idea. And if you were correct and I was wrong, than you’d be able to find a pattern where some of my ideas reject what science asserts. Good luck with that.

Ironically, the first time we started arguing about climate science, you made it very clear your denial of the facts derived by climate scientists was motivated by your desire the government not make any effort to mitigate the threat of warming. That would of course strongly suggest that once again we’re now observing weapons-grade psychological projection out of you.

Ideas are a type of conclusion, they’re built on premises. The quality of the idea is a causal result of the quality and sufficiency of the premises used to support the idea.

You (Oh, sorry I forgot that the game is played by pretending we’re talking to some grand and learned audience rather than each other). Mr. Heath really loves to make these idiotically self-indulgent pronouncements, doesn’t he?

…you’d be able to find a pattern where some of my ideas reject what science asserts.

Sadly Mr. Heath badly misunderstands the meaning of the word “science”. Science is not a catalog of “accepted” and “rejected” ideas. It is an ongoing process.

It is about constantly testing hypotheses against evidence in an asymptotic, and often chaotic, path towards understanding.

Ironically, the first time we started arguing about climate science, you made it very clear your denial of the facts derived by climate scientists was motivated by your desire the government not make any effort to mitigate the threat of warming.

Egads man! You addressed me directly. Poor form old chap.

Name one “fact” I deny. The only thing I “deny” is the idiotic proposition, put forth by you and other climate catastrophists, that we face an imminent peril to “the existence of civilization” and “the greatest threat ever faced by our species” and other such rot.

Unfortunately for me and fortunate for you, since it had a whole bunch of quote-able BS from you, that link at Scienceblogs is now dead

How convenient. Sad that you are denied the triumph of laying a pathetic “denier” low.

There was a time when I had hope that you and I could engage in an honest discussion of the evidence but that has, sadly, never been your intention.

Newcombe: ” God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.’”
.
Yes, well, if cats had litters of puppies (without high tech intervention) then it would be a real problem for mainstream biology. But that doesn’t happen, anyway. Moot, in any event, since the Bible is not only not verifiable evidence in part, the rest of it is at odds with all other observations.
.
Newcombe: “That’s why some dogs are poodles and some dogs are great Danes, while both still remain dogs.”
.
And we are still fish. Highly modified, to be sure, from our ocean-dwelling ancestor, but we are still fish. We are not “still insects”, for our ancestors never were bugs of any kind. But we are still chordates, still mammals, still primates, still hominids.

For the most rigid of Authoritarians, reality is entirely a social construct, along the lines of a national boundary. It is always open to dispute. If the US and Canada were fighting over our border, and one side got tired of the argument and walked away, then the other side hasn’t lost – they haven’t given in. When a Creationist reads that “Professor Jones has looked at the data and admitted that the new model by Dr. Smith is more likely to be correct”, the Creationist reads “Professor Jones has been defeated in behind-the-scenes politics and has aligned himself with the newcomer, Dr. Smith”.
.
For this reason arguments are not seen as elements in determining the truth, but rather as rhetorical devices, to be used as are punches and weapons in a street fight. That jab been have been blocked this time, but if I see an opening I will try again. So too, a refuted argument just means that it was ineffectual for one portion of one argument, not “refuted forever”.
.
Also of course there are tribal identity issues here. In the authoritarian world, especially the religious fundamentalist world, having the correct beliefs identify one as belonging to the right tribe. How one arrives at those beliefs is irrelevant. In fact, we have seen numerous cases (failed end of world prophecies, the recent GOP defeat, etc.) in which people doubling down in the insanity seems to enhance their status in the Tea Party, the Southern Baptist Convention, etc.

Lancifer: ‘Name one “fact” I deny. The only thing I “deny” is the idiotic proposition, put forth by you and other climate catastrophists, that we face an imminent peril to “the existence of civilization” and “the greatest threat ever faced by our species” and other such rot.”‘
.
You have to admit that this is a pretty big fact to deny. Also, since you reject an entire field of science, it would behoove you to offer some reasoning and evidence to support your rejection (assuming, that is, that you want to be respectable and persuasive in this).
.
The danger in global warming and related issues is the sum total and synergistic effect of all of the changes that are now occurring. Those are probably best discussed elsethread, but Michael is appropriately comparing the fallacious argument techniques of creationists with AGW denialists. Those are only the most dramatic of examples, but we also have birthers, 9/11 truthers, moon hoax conspiracists, holocaust denialists, Barton’s “history” books, and other examples. They all involve amateur rejection of mainstream models, denying verifiable evidence, Gish gallops, ad hominems (particularly the accusations of policial motivations), risible depictions of the nature of scientific or historical communities, etc.

lancifer completely misrepresents what I wrote at his post @ 30. I’ll ignore his idiocy since there’s no other posters here who are dumb enough to take that seriously, except for lance. Instead I’ll focus on this claim by lancifer:

Name one “fact” I deny.

I’ll name three:

The observed sensitivity of the earth’s climate. That’s both observed in the past climate and in the present climate. Instead you’ve continually argued, from your own ass with an argument from personal incredulity, that warming since 1880 is no cause for concern whereas scientific observations notes current levels of CO2 occurring in the past resulted in 25 meter higher sea levels.

That there are no current ill effects to flora and fauna due to climate change. In our first debate you falsely claimed none and avoided the cites I provided where observations where in fact made.

In a recent thread in this venue you claimed we have not incurred an increase in extreme weather events [due to climate change]. That was the thread that has you contradicting your previous self regrading the observed change in temp. since 1980.

Please note I provided zero cites. Here’s why: I’ve provided dozens perhaps more than a hundred cites to back-up my claims and falsify your dishonest claims. You’ve yet to produce even one cite to support your claims which are not supported by the consensus position by climate scientists with which I disagreed; that’s right – not one.

You’ve falsely claimed to have done so, like your claim that you provided cites validating your assertion that increases in C02 are beneficial to life where you then did a Gish Gallop about some rice experiments rather than producing evidence of increases in biomass and biodiversity which always holds with increases in CO2 (we were after all discussing AGW and that was the challenge presented to you prior to going on a lancifer gallop).

So I’ll re-start responding with cites when you start providing credible cites, like I’ve long done, which challenge or even falsify my understanding of what climate scientists understand. To continue to enable your bad behavior with the work it takes to retrieve such cites would be poor judgment on my part.

It’s clear to me you are incapable of confronting inconvenient facts on any subject that challenges your libertarian ideology. That became quite clear when you denied the existence of external costs and argued we should avoid/deny what modern economists understand and go back to the Lamarckian version of economics and Glen Beck favorite, Friedrich Hayek. (The debate revolved the harm sugar is causing millions of people, another fact you denied by idiotically pointing out it helps some.)

Here’s a fourth fact lancifer’s denied: When me or others have pointed out the rapid decrease of ice volume in the Arctic, lancifer has at least twice attempted to rebut these findings by coming back with graphs from denialist websites conflating Artic and Antarctica ice extent that supposedly reveals no decrease. That avoidance tactic appears to have fooled only lancifer.

This was more convincing evidence of lancifer’s determined ignorance on climate change and the physics involved in studying the two poles; ‘determined’ since his first post was refuted and yet he repeated his ignorance on why climate scientists don’t only don’t conflate observations between the poles, but also parse out what’s going in West Antarctica from the rest of Antarctica. Which he’d know if he actually studied climate science rather than seek denialist arguments to defend his political positions; which again, fools no one in this venue except him.

You just can’t help building pseudo-arguments that misrepresent my statements can you? Then you run off shredding these straw men like a kid with a plastic light saber tearing through imaginary imperial storm troopers.

Why don’t we agree to stick to one of your assertions at a time. Would that be alright with you?

You say that the first “fact” that I “deny” is.

The observed sensitivity of the earth’s climate.

Well first, I assume you mean the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. If not please be more specific. Why don’t you give me the figure that you think represents this quantity and then I’ll tell you whether I “deny” it or not. But first you have to establish this quantity as a known “fact”.

Good luck with that. The IPCC reports have given ever shrinking ranges that are the hottest subject in atmospheric physics and the topic of many, often contradictory, scientific studies. It is the proverbial 64 thousand dollar question and I’m dying to hear you “pin it down” to a simple “fact”.

Now, it should be quite easy since it is the first item on your list. I’m going to ignore the others for the moment and give you time to find the value of this “fact”.